Before the debate is
resumed, I think it would be well to give a ruling on the question of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) as to whether the amendment to the motion is in order. On April 23rd, Mr. Ralston moved as an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of ways and means, the following:
This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance give no indication of the intention of the government to abandon the policies of economic nationalism which have proved so disastrous to Canada's trade. It is of the opinion that the immediate substitution therefor of policies which will promote export trade throughout the world is essential to any permanent improvement of conditions in Canada, and to the successful application of other policies respecting credit and employment designed to effect this end.
On April 30, Mr. Spencer moved a subamendment and on May 7 on a question of order raised by Mr. Mackenzie, of Vancouver Centre, as to the subamendment, I held that the subamendment was not in order as it sought to deal with the question of credit which had been debated on a motion by Mr. Lucas and the matter of credit had been by consent referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce where it is being considered.
It is now argued that the amendment is not in order and for the same reasons as said subamendment was held to be not in order.
When this amendment was moved, there was on the order paper Bill 51 entitled, "An Act to Improve the Methods and Practices of Marketing of Natural Products in Canada and in Export Trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith." This bill was read a first time March 26 and on April 23, when this amendment was moved, was on the order paper for second reading. The bill provides for export trade and for regulating the export of goods from Canada. See the title; and paragraph (b) of subsection 4; and paragraph (f) of subsection 5 of section 5; also section 12, subsection 2.
On February 13, Mr. Woodsworth moved the following amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne:
That the following be added to the motion:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by tire public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will ensure the farmer a decent standard of living.
Thereupon, employment was discussed and the amendment was disposed of by the house on a division resulting in 54 yeas and 89 nays.
That amendment dealt with the question of employment generally and the amendment now before the house is to the same effect and so is not in order.
My decision is supported by the following precedents. Bourinot, page 328:
"It is, however, an ancient Tule of parliament that no question or motion can be regularly offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed during the current session." The old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house."
May, 13th edition, at page 272 says:
A matter already appointed for consideration by the house cannot be anticipated by an amendment, while a notice of motion as long as it remains upon the paper whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject matter being discussed by means of an amendment to a motion.
Speaker's rulings on the question are reported as follows:
207 II.D. 3 s 500:
Now there is a rule of the house that when a matter has been expressly set down for consideration, no hon. member can anticipate it by raising a discussion on the subject.
308 H.D. 3 s 1755:
I must point out to the hon. member that he has introduced a bill, which is now standing on the paper for the second reading, which contains a distinct reference to the subject matter of the present motion; and, as that bill is to be brought on upon a future day, the hon. member would not be in order in moving his resolution now, as he would be anticipating the discussion upon the bill.
333 H.D. 3 s 851:
The first two amendments on the paper, the first standing in the name of the hon. member for Iloxton, and the second in that of the hon. baronet the member for Coekermouth, are out of order as amendments, inasmuch as they anticipate the discussion, one on three and the other on four bills which the house has appointed for a future day, and one of those bills, I observe, is in the name of the hon. gentleman himself. The amendment, therefore, of the hon. gentleman will be out of order as an amendment to the address.
The Budget-Speaker's Ruling
66 Parliamentary Debates, 4 s page 923:
The subject of the hon. member's amendment to the address is relative to several bills on the order book and he will have an opportunity of submitting his views to the house when one of them comes on. He cannot now anticipate discussion on a bill which is on the order book.
The same practice has always been followed in Canada, see Bourinot, 4th edition, page 320:
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of motion on the order paper.
In this case the amendment goes further and anticipates a bill No. 51, now being considered in committee dealing with marketing and export trade.
I therefore rule that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) is out of order, as it is substantially the same as one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed and it deals with matters already before the house.
Subtopic: ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE